Support NeoGAF

[lo escondido]

No one's putting words in your mouth. If you aren't capable of actually saying what you mean, that's your problem. I'll quote what you actually said:



If you don't mean NPR/PBS, which is government funded media, then maybe you should say what you mean, rather than trying to insert your opinions into the mouths of the rest of America without a hint of evidence.

Again, progressive taxation IS wealth redistribution, and almost certainly the method by which EV would further redistribute wealth. And it's supported by Americans, including the idea of further taxing the rich. When you use the words "wealth redistribution" the numbers slide, but only to about a half and half.

In context it is clear what I meant.
And some on with the wealth redistribution crap my progressive taxation is not EV's marxism and you know that. Don't try to make the two things the same.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Personally people should just use as many sources as they can get there hands on International (BBC World, AP, Rueters), Local News (Guardian/Telegraph/Daily Star), Regional Hubs (AJE), and make judgments on their own using critical thinking and evaluation. I think THAT skill is far more important than a Government funded News Source.

Honestly if you have an internet connection you have no excuse to complain about access to news media.

Hell look at all the links on Drudge, and before I get pilled on, its has Daily Kos, the Guardian, click on some of them and try and look at different views, evaluate them and make your own judgments. Now if you want to complain about a lot of places using wire sources too much, I'm all for that.

 

[empty vessel]

In context it is clear what I meant.
And some on with the wealth redistribution crap my progressive taxation is not EV's marxism and you know that. Don't try to make the two things the same.

What is my marxism?

I am happy to redistribute wealth via progressive taxation and government spending. In fact, isn't raising taxes on the wealthy pretty much the mantra I'm known for around here?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Those entities are intended to disseminate propaganda, and explicitly so, which is why they are prohibited from broadcasting in the US. It's illegal.

Some are (and I'll give Radio Marti), but not all of them.

Look at VOA

In late September 2001, VOA aired a report that contained brief excerpts of an interview with then Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammad, along with segments from President Bush's post-9/11 speech to Congress, an expert in Islam from Georgetown University, and comments by the foreign minister of Afghanistan's anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. State Department officials including Richard Armitage and others argued that the report amounted to giving terrorists a platform to express their views. In response, reporters and editors argued for VOA's editorial independence from its governors. The VOA received praise from press organizations for its protests, and the following year in 2002, it won the University of Oregon's Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism.

Is that Propaganda???

 

[speculawyer]

Well, the Weiner won't suffer financial shrinkage by being left out in the cold.

HBO offered him a job:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/anthony-weiner-offered-entourage_n_878873.html

Larry Flynt offered him a job:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/anthony-weiner-resigning-_b_878667.html

Well . . . he does have experience with dirty pictures on the Internet.


I feel better knowing that he will have job opportunities. He served well but he fucked up. Thanks for your service but he would have been damaged goods from now on.


Maddow bitched & moaned for much of last night's show . . . she should look on the bright side . . . the Dems can really effectively bash the GOP as the fake hypocritical 'family values' party. With Gingrich, Ensign, Vitter, etc . . . they really have less than zero credibility in that area.

 

[lo escondido]

Those entities are intended to disseminate propaganda, and explicitly so, which is why they are prohibited from broadcasting in the US. It's illegal.

No they are intended to broadcast "accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to an international audience" to oppressed populations, you disagree and label them propaganda.

Your problem with them is the same problem I would have with state run media

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Shep is good people, but his panels usually suck and he doesn't point out the hypocrisy all the time. I will take him over the other anchors though. Chris Wallace can do good interviews when pushed, sometimes.

That's fine, the Fox is awful, but Shep is good is a bit of meme at times in PoliGaf (and when I've seen him he seems fine. Bret Beir on the other hand looks like a homeless guy with an old tuxedo at least the one time I saw him on TV.

Also, pretty sure that people here know that I'm not a big fan of MSNBC at all. I like Rachel Maddow though. <3

I have nothing against Maddow, I just can't get over her looking like (to me) Gozer the Gozerian, it can't be unseen!

Honestly around here I don't here MSNBC get mentioned too much around here besides Maddow. I just hate how it tries pandering to liberals (it's no better than Fox) with taglines and such and is mostly just boring.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

No they are intended to broadcast "accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to an international audience" to oppressed populations, you disagree and label them propaganda.

Like Fox News?

 

[lo escondido]

What is my marxism?

I am happy to redistribute wealth via progressive taxation and government spending. In fact, isn't raising taxes on the wealthy pretty much the mantra I'm known for around here?

I would be scared to see your proposed tax rates.

Like Fox News?

yes

I was being sarcastic about their lack of bias. I view them no differently than any other news source subject to certain viewpoints.

 

[Suikoguy]

What is my marxism?

I am happy to redistribute wealth via progressive taxation and government spending. In fact, isn't raising taxes on the wealthy pretty much the mantra I'm known for around here?

Even taxing Capital Gains as income would go a long way towards fixing things.

 

[Skiptastic]

Even taxing Capital Gains as income would go a long way towards fixing things.

Hey! We can finally get back to what I wanted to talk about!

Hey, I want to eliminate capital gains taxes too!

Spoiler

Because it should be taxed as income, not a special tax rate.

I really wonder the impact of essentially erasing all of the individual "special" taxes (estate tax, capital gains tax, dividends, etc.) and simply taxing all flows of money as income would be? It ought to simplify the tax code, but someone I'm sure can think of other external impacts. I'd like to discuss that. Should be fun brainstorming...

 

[mckmas8808]

It's not enough to claim that is the reason why the leadership rejected him though. Clinton's lies were far, far more substantial as he made them under oath. Yet he maintained full support from allies (I think, I don't completely recall the reaction from dem leadership).

Its a combination of Weiner being a smug prick, the pictures (as pointed out above) and the current always-on media combined with the creep factor.

It certainly isn't just that he lied though.

I completely agree.

 

[Suikoguy]

Hey! We can finally get back to what I wanted to talk about!

lol, yeah I think I remember reading that now.
It's amazing that Capital Gains is taxed separate at 15%.

Why not include the gains or losses in your general income?

 

[Jackson50]

To oversimplify a little, I think it's pretty much the case that we're going to turn it over to the Taliban when we leave. This seems like a way to help that happen sooner rather than later, and I'm honestly ok with that.

I concur to an extent. I think it is a desperate ploy to engender the Taliban's induction into Afghanistan's constitutional framework. And it may have been successful had they began facilitating their induction years ago. Now, time is against us. And reconciliation is seen as a quick fix that will accelerate our withdrawal. Yet the Taliban is aware of this, and reconciliation is now a pipe dream.

No they are intended to broadcast "accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to an international audience" to oppressed populations, you disagree and label them propaganda.

Your problem with them is the same problem I would have with state run media

They broadcast "accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to an international audience" to project American interests. They were not created to foster an independent source of news. They were created to "objectively" represent American policies; e.g., it is in VOA's Charter:

1) VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.
2) VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.
3) VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. (Public Law 94-350)

The purpose of public media would not be to represent America and project American interests. Its purpose would be the unvarnished, disinterested dissemination of information-similar to NPR, but with more capabilities and devoid of the influence of its corporate underwriters.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Personally people should just use as many sources as they can get there hands on International (BBC World, AP, Rueters), Local News (Guardian/Telegraph/Daily Star), Regional Hubs (AJE), and make judgments on their own using critical thinking and evaluation. I think THAT skill is far more important than a Government funded News Source.

Honestly if you have an internet connection you have no excuse to complain about access to news media.

Hell look at all the links on Drudge, and before I get pilled on, its has Daily Kos, the Guardian, click on some of them and try and look at different views, evaluate them and make your own judgments. Now if you want to complain about a lot of places using wire sources too much, I'm all for that.

I'm sure you know that BBC is a government news source...

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, the Weiner won't suffer financial shrinkage by being left out in the cold.

HBO offered him a job:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/anthony-weiner-offered-entourage_n_878873.html

Larry Flynt offered him a job:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/anthony-weiner-resigning-_b_878667.html

Well . . . he does have experience with dirty pictures on the Internet.


I feel better knowing that he will have job opportunities. He served well but he fucked up. Thanks for your service but he would have been damaged goods from now on.


Maddow bitched & moaned for much of last night's show . . . she should look on the bright side . . . the Dems can really effectively bash the GOP as the fake hypocritical 'family values' party. With Gingrich, Ensign, Vitter, etc . . . they really have less than zero credibility in that area.

God I hope he takes the HBO job. He fucked up badly, but he can still debate with the best of them.

 

[besada]

In context it is clear what I meant.
And some on with the wealth redistribution crap my progressive taxation is not EV's marxism and you know that. Don't try to make the two things the same.

No, it wasn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have addressed it. Regardless, you still haven't supported it, whatever you meant. And seriously, learn to type. I could barely read your second sentence.

Again, you're responsible for what you say, not what you meant to say.

And some on with the wealth redistribution crap my progressive taxation is not EV's marxism and you know that.

I assume you meant to say, "And the same for your opinion regarding wealth redistribution. Progressive taxation is not the same thing as EV's Marxism and you know that."

First, I don't know that. Second, I don't think you know what Marxism is. Third, if you knew what you meant to say, why didn't you say that instead?

 

[Cyan]

Yeah, good luck getting the conventions of western relationships changed anytime soon, PolyGAF.

Hehe, was that on purpose?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

hey broadcast "accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to an international audience" to project American interests. They were not created to foster an independent source of news. They were created to "objectively" represent American policies; e.g., it is in VOA's Charter:

I think that's really selling VOA short, but more importantly.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf (Page 2)
From the BBC's charter

4.The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b)promoting education and learning;
(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;

(e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; (World to the UK is the part that VOA doesn't do because of Smith Mundt)
(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of
emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a
leading role in the switchover to digital television.

Couldn't you say the same thing you commented about the VOA to the BBC charter to an extent?

I'm sure you know that BBC is a government news source...

Yes, I know that. My point was to work from a variety of sources and I also earlier commented why something like the BBC (while existing already with the VOA/Radio Free) would not work in the United States, because of the feeling (look at the Mundt Smith Act) or (which party is in charge) that it would be viewed (wrongly) as propaganda.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Its damn good at disseminating news but so is fox. I don't understand how the fact that they can get their word out makes them better.

But theres always this, it has bias (but I'm going to assume that you don't have a big a problem because you agree with a lot of their opinions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I (and most American's) think government funded media is just wrong and the opposite of limited government what this country is about. Just as you think wealth redistribution is good.

So many buzzphrases in this post, urgh.

 

[empty vessel]

I think that's really selling VOA short, but more importantly.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf (Page 2)
From the BBC's charter

Couldn't you say the same thing you commented about the VOA to the BBC charter to an extent?

Yes, I know that. My point was to work from a variety of sources and I also earlier commented why something like the BBC (while existing already with the VOA/Radio Free) would not work in the United States, because of the feeling (look at the Mundt Smith Act) or (which party is in charge) that it would be viewed (wrongly) as propaganda.

I don't really know why you're stuck on this prediction that it "will never be" instead of taking and arguing the merits of a substantive position on whether it should be. Regardless of what one thinks about VOA, a publicly funded domestic media will not be VOA (which was designed for the very specific purpose of promoting American foreign policy). You can keep insisting that publicly funded domestic media can't happen (and I would strongly disagree, mostly because it already has happened--it's just been significantly weakened), but that's a different debate from whether it should happen, which is the one most of us are having.

 

[besada]

Jesus. I remember someone throwing a fit when it was suggested the U.S. Government was intentionally allowing gun sales to drug cartel members:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7611636.html

Three federal firearms investigators told a House committee on Wednesday that they were repeatedly ordered to step aside while gun buyers in Arizona walked away with AK-47s and other high-powered weaponry headed for Mexican drug cartels in a risky U.S. law enforcement operation that went out of control.

Operation Fast and Furious came to light after two assault rifles purchased by a now-indicted small-time buyer under scrutiny in the operation turned up at the scene of a shootout in Arizona where Customs and Border Protection agent Brian Terry was killed.

Edit: Ron Paul's giving a speech and CNN is actually covering it. Will wonders never cease?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't really know why you're stuck on this prediction that it "will never be" instead of taking and arguing the merits of a substantive position on whether it should be. Regardless of what one thinks about VOA, a publicly funded domestic media will not be VOA (which was designed for the very specific purpose of promoting American foreign policy). You can keep insisting that publicly funded domestic media can't happen (and I would strongly disagree, mostly because it already has happened--it's just been significantly weakened), but that's a different debate from whether it should happen, which is the one most of us are having.

I don't think it should happen because it's not needed. You can't change the fact that people will view it as propaganda, but regarding should not....

I'll repeat what I posted earlier

Personally people should just use as many sources as they can get there hands on International (BBC World, AP, Rueters), Local News (Guardian/Telegraph/Daily Star), Regional Hubs (AJE), and make judgments on their own using critical thinking and evaluation. I think THAT skill is far more important than a Government funded News Source.

Honestly if you have an internet connection you have no excuse to complain about access to news media or the need of the a US taxpayer funded one.

Hell look at all the links on Drudge, and before I get pilled on, its has Daily Kos, the Guardian, click on some of them and try and look at different views, evaluate them and make your own judgments. Now if you want to complain about a lot of places using wire sources too much, I'm all for that.

I'd rather have my money go to get Sherlock on PBS than for a news service.

 

[PantherLotus]

I swear to god I just read that exact same post, Manos.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I swear to god I just read that exact same post, Manos.

Because it was posted earlier. I did say "what I posted earlier"

 

[besada]

They're going to have Bachmann speaking in about an hour, if anyone cares.

 

[timetokill]

This whole discussion of monogamy is one of those things that really hurts the left on a political basis. Many on the left have this terrible habit of dealing with reality and thus dig up statistics on cheating and divorce. The right and much of public prefer happy mythology. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it is for life! (Never mind reality . . . I've got my fingers in my ears nanananananana!)

This is where the right brings up things like "The left wants to make marriage a 7 year contract" . . . Even though that was bogus, it rings true with discussions like this one happening.

So although it can be discussed honestly here. The politicians on the left are wisely not saying any of this stuff.

It will be nice when people can talk about reality honestly but that just isn't how the game is played.

It's somewhat ironic that the left would not understand this concept when they just elected their man on a message of "hope." Hope is what people want, it's what they rally around. It's what sells cosmetics.

Realistically, yes, a lot of marriages don't end up working out. But people want to hope that theirs do. People generally don't go into marriage thinking, "this isn't gonna last." They go in hoping they are happy together forever.

And honestly, the chances of a marriage working out and being forever are a LOT better than the chances of a politician reforming government and working for the common man instead of the wealthy elite. So if you're going to hope for something, might as well hope your marriage lasts. Play the odds

 

[MalboroRed]

The government is not forcing you to do anything. I already mentioned this in the last post. If you don't wanna listen to the facts, it's your prerogative. No one is forcing you to watch Frontline on PBS. You can simply change the channel and go back to watching Sean Hannity frothing at the mouth for 1 hour. Saying PBS is not objective is a pretty big statement. Accusations of liberal bias here and there is not equal to full on madness of the rightwing news machine.

If it's a publicly funded broadcasting network then the government is forcing the people to pay for something they might or might not watch.

And please, don't teach me what the point of democracy is. Democracy is not a carte-blanche to do whatever you want. It simply is a political system where people elect representatives based on popular vote and in order to do that effectively, you need an informed debate and truthful news. If all you have are Fox Newses in the country and abolish public broadcasting, you will have a nation of talking point chatterboxes. Yes, people will vote, but they are voting on behalf of the corporate interests that are the men behind the curtain, not based on their own interests.

Most news channels already have news reporting outside of opinion shows, the same is true with Fox News, whether you would like to admit it or not, people don't watch The O'Reilly Factor or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck for news on FNC, they watch people like Jon Scott/Jenna Lee/Sheppard Smith, people who are clearly reporters who do try to be impartial and not commentators. People can vote however they want, not only how YOU decide would be in their best interests. What are you going to do if you DO have a big public network and people still DON'T watch it? Are you going to shut down all the cable news channel you don't like because their opinion shows have right-wing views? What if they don't want your idea of "truthful news"?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

They're going to have Bachmann speaking in about an hour, if anyone cares.

"They" is?

 

[PantherLotus]

Because it was posted earlier. I did say "what I posted earlier"

My brain recogonized the similarities and rejected the new information. In both cases I wanted to respond to the weird comment about wire sources but not enough to bother.

Standard practice is to put it in quotes, though.

 

[TacticalFox88]

They're going to have Bachmann speaking in about an hour, if anyone cares.

Where at? Nothing else better to do.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

My brain recogonized the similarities and rejected the new information. In both cases I wanted to respond to the weird comment about wire sources but not enough to bother.

Standard practice is to put it in quotes, though.

Understandable. Good point about the quotes, but I did change a little after pasting it, so I felt quoting it would be incorrect.

The wire sources comment was an attempt to preempt claims that most things are just sourced from AP or Reuters articles, and acknowledging that I take that into account when looking for sources.

 

[GhaleonEB]

If it's a publicly funded broadcasting network then the government is forcing the people to pay for something they might or might not watch.

A publicly funded highway system is forcing me to pay for roads I might not drive on.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If it's a publicly funded broadcasting network then the government is forcing the people to pay for something they might or might not watch.

we can't have a functioning society where people only pay taxes on the things they want or use.

 

[PantherLotus]

If it's a publicly funded broadcasting network then the government is forcing the people to pay for something they might or might not watch.



Most news channels already have news reporting outside of opinion shows, the same is true with Fox News, whether you would like to admit it or not, people don't watch The O'Reilly Factor or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck for news on FNC, they watch people like Jon Scott/Jenna Lee/Sheppard Smith, people who are clearly reporters who do try to be impartial and not commentators. People can vote however they want, not only how YOU decide would be in their best interests. What are you going to do if you DO have a big public network and people DON'T watch it? Are you going to shut down all the cable news channel you don't like because they have right-wing views?

1. It's not publically funded, it's publically supported.
2. You are not FORCED to pay taxes any more than you're forced to live here.
3. There are lots of services provided that you don't use. That doesn't mean you get to bitch about it.

4. WTF are you babbling about? If your position is that FOXNEWS is a legitimate news service and that PBS is liberal propaganda you're being forced to pay for, you don't deserve the dignity of a response.

 

[besada]

"They" is?

CNN. They're covering some Republican event, which is why they had Paul speaking.

I'm engaging in my yearly round of self-abuse by watching CNN. Currently they're discussing the tremendously important upcoming golf game between Boehner and Obama.

Now we're moving onto Paul Stanley from KISS and how to overcome disabilities.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I would be scared to see your proposed tax rates.

Oh please.


If you made $373,650 last year, your federal income tax rate was 29.0165% Your payroll tax rate was 3.2221%. You're basically paying a federal tax rate of 32.24%.

Someone making $70k a year pays 19.7762% in income tax and 7.65% payroll tax. a tax rate of 27.43%

someone making $30k pays 13.61% income tax and 7.65% payroll tax, meaning a federal tax rate of 21.26%.



The person making $373,650 in a year has a tax rate that is only 10.98% higher than the person making $30k. Oh, and if someone's self employed, you can double their payroll tax rate from 7.65% to 15.30%. Meaning someone who is self-employed making $70k has a higher tax rate than someone who is not self-employed making $373,650.

Shut the fuck up with your fear mongering, the current tax rates should scare the crap out of any reasonable person, even ignoring sales taxes (Which is even more regressive in practice than payroll taxes are due to the fact that typically the portion of income susceptible to sales tax decreases as total income increases. Yay marginal utility) and the 15% capital gains tax rate.


Warren fucking Buffet pays a tax rate of 16%

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think it should happen because it's not needed. You can't change the fact that people will view it as propaganda, but regarding should not....

People do not view NPR and PBS as propaganda. Nor did they when they were heavily funded by the US government. Your allegation is counterfactual.

Personally people should just use as many sources as they can get there hands on International (BBC World, AP, Rueters), Local News (Guardian/Telegraph/Daily Star), Regional Hubs (AJE), and make judgments on their own using critical thinking and evaluation. I think THAT skill is far more important than a Government funded News Source.

First, this does not at all address the problem I have presented that none of these sources--save the BBC--is in the business of producing news content relevant to the public. Each of those sources are in the business of selling audiences to advertisers. You are asking people to rely for news on entities that are not creating news. Democracies do not survive without news. And I'm afraid ours already hasn't.

Second, we aren't talking about skills. Our democracy should not be made to rest on the hope that people are sufficiently motivated to acquire the skills to use many sources of news. Many people, even today, plain lack access to those sources (which is why radio and broadcast is so important). Nor do many people have the time and leisure to peruse multiple sources of news. You betray your class bias. (There's also not some irony in your referencing the BBC as a source of news Americans should be expected to seek out.)

Honestly if you have an internet connection you have no excuse to complain about access to news media or the need of the a US taxpayer funded one.

The problem is not that people give excuses. It's that news relevant to the public is not even being produced or is being produced in resource-deprived or in non-profit environments biased by private donors. Moreover, you seem to think that the internet is more widespread than it is. Even in the US:

"Despite the growing importance of the Internet in American life, over 30 percent of households and 35 percent of persons do not use the Internet at home, and 30 percent of all persons do not use the Internet anywhere."

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf

Because an informed public is critical--not important, critical--to legitimate democracy, you cannot leave 30% of the public to languish without access to information that is relevant to their self-governance. You cannot believe in democracy and hold the positions you do. You just can't.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

CNN. They're covering some Republican event, which is why they had Paul speaking.

I'm engaging in my yearly round of self-abuse by watching CNN. Currently they're discussing the tremendously important upcoming golf game between Boehner and Obama.

Now we're moving onto Paul Stanley from KISS and how to overcome disabilities.

CNN: Your Home for Marginal Candidates

 

[besada]

CNN: Your Home for Marginal Candidates

I finally figured out that candidates are speaking at the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee. I had to look it up online because CNN couldn't be bothered to engage in the easiest of their journalistic responsibilities: Where?

Edit: Casey Anthony story...resolve weakening...hand moving toward remote...

 

[Jenga]

CNN journalistic responsibilities

wut

 

[Cyan]

If it's a publicly funded broadcasting network then the government is forcing the people to pay for something they might or might not watch.

Welcome to publicly funded... anything?

Freeways, as Ghaleon said. Public transportation I might never use. Public parks I will never visit, public buildings I will never enter, streetlights I will never stand beneath. Public schools for the kids I don't have. Fancy military equipment I'll never be allowed to use. Social security I plan to never need. Firefighters I hope to never need.

This is what it is to live under--well, any form of government but total anarchy, really.

 

[Jackson50]

I think that's really selling VOA short, but more importantly.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf (Page 2)
From the BBC's charter


Couldn't you say the same thing you commented about the VOA to the BBC charter to an extent?

I would not include such a provision in a charter for an American public media organization. Nor have I presented the BBC as the archetype for public media although in practice they are exemplary. Nevertheless, I would find the BBC's charter troublesome if it also stated its purpose was to "present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant British thought and institutions" and "present the policies of the United Kingdom clearly and effectively." VOA's explicit purpose is to promote and project U.S. foreign policy. That is why it is unsuitable to serve as public media.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

People do not view NPR and PBS as propaganda. Nor did they when they were heavily funded by the US government. Your allegation is counterfactual.

Are NPR or PBS funded the same way as VOA/RFL? No, they receive corporate underwriting. Therefore your comparison is invalid.

Second, we aren't talking about skills. Our democracy should not be made to rest on the hope that people are sufficiently motivated to acquire the skills to use many sources of news. Many people, even today, plain lack access to those sources (which is why radio and broadcast is so important). Nor do many people have the time and leisure to peruse multiple sources of news.

It's called a library, they allow access to the internet and you don't even have to pay for it.
Access is not as large an issue as you make it out to be. If a democracy doesn't need to rest upon it's population developing critical thinking skills than it's seems to just want drones, which really isn't something that help democracies thrive.

You betray your class bias.

That's pretty rich coming from a (self admitted) Middle Class kid from Texas, who despite me saying what my parents did has refused to say what his did, or who only up until 6-8months ago was still using Bank of America! I had to break it you but you're not a member of the proletariat.

(There's also not some irony in your referencing the BBC as a source of news Americans should be expected to seek out.)

I'm not paying for it.

The problem is not that people give excuses. It's that news relevant to the public is not even being produced or is being produced in resource-deprived or in non-profit environments biased by private donors. Moreover, you seem to think that the internet is more widespread than it is. Even in the US:

Only 3 out of 10 people have no access to the internet is actually better than I would expect. For others there are libraries, schools (for students), it's not just a black void. The fact is you also can't force people to watch or digest news. What will happen if most people choose to ignore this new source of news?

Because an informed public is critical--not important, critical--to legitimate democracy, you cannot leave 30% of the public to languish without access to information that is relevant to their self-governance. You cannot believe in democracy and hold the positions you do. You just can't.

There is access as I've described for people without the internet. Frankly your "You cannot believe in democracy and hold the positions you do. You just can't" troll is about on par with the You don't deserve to be a lawyer (which always sounds it's coming from a very bitter person) crap you like to shovel at me. Guess what I can have my views and still believe in democracy. Putting forward an if you don't agree with EV you don't believe in democracy is a really shitty argument.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I would not include such a provision in a charter for an American public media organization. Nor have I presented the BBC as the archetype for public media although in practice they are exemplary. Nevertheless, I would find the BBC's charter troublesome if it also stated its purpose was to "present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant British thought and institutions" and "present the policies of the United Kingdom clearly and effectively." VOA's explicit purpose is to promote and project U.S. foreign policy. That is why it is unsuitable to serve as public media.

I used the BBC since it's easier to find the charter for it

So you're saying that section 4 of the BBC Charter can't be read as similar to both section 2 and 3 of the VOA?

 

[Cyan]

It's called a library, they allow access to the internet and you don't even have to pay for it.

Well, someone has to pay for it.

This was brought home hard to me recently; one of my local libraries got hit with deep funding cuts, and is now charging $80/yr for a library card, starting in two weeks.

Urk.

 

[Oblivion]

Again, progressive taxation IS wealth redistribution, and almost certainly the method by which EV would further redistribute wealth.

Isn't any form of taxation wealth redistribution?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Well, someone has to pay for it.

This was brought home hard to me recently; one of my local libraries got hit with deep funding cuts, and is now charging $80/yr for a library card, starting in two weeks.

Urk.

Now that is interesting. I've come across something for DVD rentals, but never for just access. I'd rather have money go from creating a news service to allowing the public free library access.

 

[Jackson50]

I used the BBC since it's easier to find the charter for it

So you're saying that section 4 of the BBC Charter can't be read as similar to both section 2 and 3 of the VOA?

Okay.

Oh, they appear strikingly similar. Well, until the VOA charter explicitly states its purpose is to project and present policy and thought.

 

[besada]

Well, someone has to pay for it.

This was brought home hard to me recently; one of my local libraries got hit with deep funding cuts, and is now charging $80/yr for a library card, starting in two weeks.

Urk.

My local library just added a new wing. Out in the suburbs. Of course, it's mostly filled with computers, which made me sad, because I like books.